Contents

He leans towards libertarianism, which means that he wants to be President, but he wants that job to have essentially no responsibility. Alternatively he's a Dominionist theocrat pretending to be a libertarian. [2]

For some reason, conservatives and liberals alike embraced Ron Paul, without knowing anything about his politics other than his opposition to the war in Iraq. He is hardline against illegal immigrants, against the government helping people through handouts, (That makes workers and their families dependent on bad bosses and reduces freedom.) He wants to get education away from the US Federal Government, and is against the government really doing anything at all, although he has never voted to raise taxes or for a budget that increases the federal deficit. He is a conservative, and a lazy one at that, with many of his solutions to problems being a free marketeconomy including alternative energy. He has been accused of racism although he has said over and over that he isn't. [3]

Ron Paul was the oldest candidate running for office in 2008.
Ron Paul believes that racism is an ugly form of collectivism, and consistently votes against bills which divide people into groups, and has caused many to believe he is a white supremacist, which most some White Republicans are. He has denied those claims.

Ron Paul appears to be a supporter of civil liberties and the 4th Amendment but he befriended Pastor Phillip Kayser who wants to executegays. [4][5] So it’s not clear what Ron Paul really stands for and different voters expected different things from him. Ron Paul supports ending the failed War on Drugs and even legalizing prostitution, and is a strong proponent of the literal interpretation of the Second Amendment, meaning he wants crazy criminals and conservatives to have all the guns they want. He is also raising critical issues like fiscal policy and the need for Congress to stop spending so much money using deficit spending, and he is raising the issue of the gold standard. He supports ending the Federal Reserve and authored a book titled "End the Fed." Paul wants to send Marco Rubio to outer space to where "he belongs".[6]

He doesn't mind if same sex marriage is legal, but wants no government intervention in marriage, making this meaningless. As shown above Phillip Kayser who is one of Paul’s buddies wants to execute gays [7] so if you’re gay Ron Paul will let you and your partner marry but you might have to die for that later.

Let’s take a look at an example of what it is like to talk to a flamer-libertarian.

Taxation is undesirable since the coercive force of the state backs it.

Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism.

On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.

From looking at the example above you could say it's an "agree or disagree" where "initiate force" is implied to be the Libertarian definition. And it's justified by the axioms (chain of logic).

The idea that Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force is pure propaganda. They believe in using force as much as anyone else, if they think the application is “morally correct.” “Initiation of force" is Libertarian term meaning essentially "do something improper according to Libertarian ideology". It isn't even connected much to the actions we normally think of as "force". The question being asked above was really agree or disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to do something improper according to the libertarian ideology.
Liberals approve of some of the above but vehemently oppose other aspects.